The CGPME it invests in these reflections

The UMP debate today "sharing of added value" in the company. Why take this folder while the social partners were called to discuss the matter by the Elysee

Frédéric Lefebvre. It would have been singular that our political family does not work on the subject while the Gaullists have put in place, the first great step in the sharing of wealth. We want to contribute to the construction of a new stage. Step for the sake of the symbol, but effectiveness research to change the lives of people.

On what observation base your thoughts

Eric Besson. There are, a priori, a hiatus between the experts who say that the share of compensation of employees in the added value is stable for 20 years, and the citizens who feel a deterioration of their situation. In reality, these two perceptions are correct, because within the wage share, there has been capturing a significant share of the compensation by the compensation is granted some leaders. We have all contributed to say that the market "aboveground" bonuses or pensions hats was marginal, but it is more. This is not to challenge the right to have businesses of high wages, but to put an end to the injustices. It is not acceptable that workers and the bosses have the feeling that when things go wrong, they suffer the consequences, while only the great leaders benefit from when all is well.

F. L. Our concern is to construct lines of force on the corporate governance where the independent directors are independent as the name on the principles that must guide the variable remuneration related to the performance of the company, employees and leaders. We want that the same principles now apply to all: it is normal that a leader of Valeo with twenty years of seniority parte with something but it must be treated as the other employees! It will be, for example, the end of pensions for some hats. The principles of the collective agreement, the agreement of branch or recent practice should apply to everyone in the company.

Nicolas Sarkozy has estimated that in terms of profit-sharing, the "account" was not there. What are your proposals

F. L. We first in mind "wage dividend" device, so bonus reserved for small businesses, but we are now moving towards a dividend "hat". Companies would have the choice of tools to associate employees benefit (participation, engagement, bonus shares, stock options, bonuses Classics), retirement.... We also want to pool risks for employees, particularly in a crisis. Part of the sums could be fléchée to guarantee funds established at the level of branches, and would be designed to protect the company and its employees for economic disaster.

The head of State spoke about the rule of the thirds (shareholders, investment, employees). You set an encrypted objective

E. B. Do not have a notarial vision of what was said the President of the Republic. It must preserve the investment, which is the key to competitiveness in the years that come, and then spread fairly between the parties involved.

Do you expect difficulties on the part of the Medef

F. L. The Medef is in principle against. It is not just think about the subject. We will help him! And it will be in position. The CGPME, it invests in these reflections. It seems to have understood that it is an opportunity to burnish the country the patterns, damaged by a few isolated irresponsible behaviour, but above all, to be more efficient and fairer.

Is given the low development have seen participation in SMEs devices, not illusory to propose measures that are not mandatory

F. L. Small businesses do not yet have the necessary tools. They are reluctant for example, for profit, to pay bonuses to their employees who, within a few years, are reclassified in wages. But attitudes are changing. For the first time, and since we have implemented a financial incentive Act "participation and engagement", SMEs are digesting system. Aided by initiatives like the CGPME, who created simple forms to explain to the bosses how they can benefit and the benefit of their employees of the devices.

E. B. As regards SMEs, I do not think that a compulsory measure is timely. One of our initial findings, I repeat, is that there is a big difference between rated major groups and SMEs on the issue of the sharing of added value. The question of the equitable sharing of collective performance arises perhaps with more acuteness in the first within seconds.